DE GUIA, PATRIXIA M.
notice of acquisition by the government as provided under this Act, but does not
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657
AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM
TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE
MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
3. Definitions. —For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates
otherwise:
(a) Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits
produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of
tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services
designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other
arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such
as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of
shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the
fruits of the lands they work.
(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means
the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising
of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products,
and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction
with such farming operations done by person whether natural or juridical.
(c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in
this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial land.
(d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to
tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise,
over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers'
associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial
arrangements.
It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired
under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership
from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm
operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.
(e) Idle or Abandoned Land refers to any agricultural land not cultivated, tilled
or developed to produce any crop nor devoted to any specific economic purpose
continuously for a period of three (3) years immediately prior to the receipt of
include land that has become permanently or regularly devoted to non-
agricultural purposes. It does not include land which has become unproductive
by reason of force majeure or any other fortuitous event, provided that prior to
such event, such land was previously used for agricultural or other economic
purpose.
SECTION 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall
cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public
and private agricultural lands, as provided in Proclamation No. 131
and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain
suitable for agriculture.
More specifically the following lands are covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to
or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands
to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act
until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and
equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the
public domain.
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined
by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable
for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of
the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.
SECTION 5. Schedule of Implementation. — The distribution of all lands covered
by this Act shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten (10)
years from the effectivity thereof.
SECTION 7. Priorities. — The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in
coordination with the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall plan
and program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a
period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired
and distributed as follows:
Phase One: Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle
or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for
agrarian reform; all lands foreclosed by the government financial institutions;
all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG);
and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for
agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon
the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed within a
period of not more than four (4) years;
Phase Two: All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; all
arable public agricultural lands under agro-forest, pasture and
agricultural leases already cultivated and planted to crops in accordance
with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public agricultural lands
which are to be opened for new development and resettlement; and all private
agricultural lands in excess of fifty (50) hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage
is concerned, to implement principally the rights of farmers and
regular farmworkers, who are the landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till, which shall be distributed immediately upon the effectivity of
this Act, with the implementation to be completed within a period of not more
than four (4) years.
Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with
large landholdings and proceeding to medium and small landholdings under the
following schedule:
(a) Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares, to
begin on the fourth (4th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be
completed within three (3) years; and
(b) Landholdings from the retention limit up to twenty-four (24) hectares, to
begin on the sixth (6th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed
within four (4) years; to implement principally the right of farmers and regular
farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till.
The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands
covered by this program shall be made in accordance with the above order of
priority, which shall be provided in the implementing rules to be prepared by
the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), taking into consideration the
following; the need to distribute land to the tillers at the earliest practicable
time; the need to enhance agricultural productivity; and the availability of funds
and resources to implement and support the program.
In any case, the PARC, upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces or region
as priority land reform areas, in which the acquisition and distribution
of private agricultural lands therein may be implemented ahead of the above
schedules. In effecting the transfer within these guidelines, priority must be
given to lands that are tenanted.
The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities
and distribution scheme, including the determination of who are qualified
beneficiaries: Provided, That an owner-tiller may be a beneficiary of the land he
does not own but is actually cultivating to the extent of the difference between
the area of the land he owns and the award ceiling of three (3) hectares.
SECTION 8. Multinational Corporations. — All lands of the public domain leased,
held or possessed by multinational corporations or associations, and other
lands owned by the government or by government-owned or
controlled corporations, associations, institutions, or entities, devoted to
existing and operational agri-business or agro-industrial enterprises, operated
by multinational corporations and associations, shall be programmed for
acquisition and distribution immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with
the implementation to be completed within three (3) years.
Lands covered by the paragraph immediately preceding, under
lease, management, grower or service contracts, and the like, shall be disposed
of as follows:
(a) Lease, management, grower or service contracts covering such lands
covering an aggregate area in excess of 1,000 hectares, leased or held by
foreign individuals in excess of 500 hectares are deemed amended to conform
with the limits set forth in Section 3 of Article XII of the Constitution.
(b) Contracts covering areas not in excess of 1,000 hectares in the case of such
corporations and associations, and 500 hectares, in the case of such individuals,
shall be allowed to continue under their original terms and
conditions but not beyond August 29, 1992, or their valid
termination, whichever comes sooner, after which, such agreements shall
continue only when confirmed by the appropriate government agency. Such
contracts shall likewise continue even after the lands has been transferred to
beneficiaries or awardees thereof, which transfer shall be immediately
commenced and implemented and completed within the period of three (3)
years mentioned in the first paragraph hereof.
(c) In no case will such leases and other agreements now being
implemented extend beyond August 29, 1992, when all lands subject hereof
shall have been distributed completely to qualified beneficiaries or
awardees. Such agreements can continue thereafter only under a new contract
between the government or qualified beneficiaries or awardees, on the one
hand, and said enterprises, on the other. Lands leased, held or possessed by
multinational corporations, owned by private individuals and private non-
governmental corporations, associations, institutions and entities, citizens of
the Philippines, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and
distribution upon the expiration of the applicable lease, management, grower or
service contract in effect as of August 29, 1987, or otherwise, upon its valid
termination, whichever comes sooner, but not later than after ten (10) years
following the effectivity of the Act. However during the said period of effectivity,
the government shall take steps to acquire these lands for
immediate distribution thereafter.
In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the individual
workerbeneficiaries. In case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide
the land, then they shall form a workers' cooperative or association which will
deal with the corporation or business association or any other proper party for
the purpose of entering into a lease or growers agreement and for all other
legitimate purposes. Until a new agreement is entered into by and between the
workers' cooperative or association and the corporation or business association
or any other proper party, any agreement existing at the time this Act takes
effect between the former and the previous landowner shall be respected by
both the workers' cooperative or association and the corporation, business,
association or such other proper party. In no case shall the implementation or
application of this Act justify or result in the reduction of status or diminution of
any benefits received or enjoyed by the worker-beneficiaries, or in which they
may have a vested right, at the time this Act becomes effective,.
The provisions of Section 32 of this Act, with regard to production and income-
sharing shall apply to farms operated by multinational corporations. During the
transition period, the new owners shall be assisted in their efforts to learn
modern technology in production. Enterprises which show a willingness
and commitment and good-faith efforts to impart voluntarily such advanced
technology will be given preferential treatment where feasible.
In no case shall a foreign corporation, association, entity or individual enjoy any
rights or privileges better than those enjoyed by a domestic
corporation, association, entity or individual.
SECTION 9. Ancestral Lands. —For purposes of this Act, ancestral lands of each
indigenous cultural community shall include, but not be limited to, lands in the
actual, continuous and open possession and occupation of the community and
its members: Provided, That the Torrens Systems shall be respected. The right
of these communities to their ancestral lands shall be protected to ensure their
economic, social and cultural well-being. In line with the principles of self-
determination and autonomy, the systems of land ownership, land use, and
the modes of settling land disputes of all these communities must be recognized
and
respected.
Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the PARC may
suspend the implementation of this Act with respect to ancestral lands for the
purpose of identifying and delineating such lands: Provided, That in the
autonomous regions, the respective legislatures may enact their own laws on
ancestral domain subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the principles
enunciated in this Act and other national laws.
SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. —Lands actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and
mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental
farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes,
seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and
convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant
thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal
farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and
quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over,
except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of the Act.
SECTION 11. Commercial Farming. — Commercial farms, which are private
agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine
raising, and aquaculture including saltbeds, fishponds and prawn ponds, fruit
farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms, and cacao, coffee and rubber
plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and
distribution after (10) years from the effectivity of the Act. In the case of new
farms, the ten-year period shall begin from
the first year of commercial production and operation, as determined by the
DAR. During the ten-year period, the government shall initiate the steps
necessary to
acquire these lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land and
the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or
associations,
which shall hereafter manage the said lands for the worker-beneficiaries. If the
DAR determines that the purposes for which this deferment is granted no
longer exist, such areas shall automatically be subject to redistribution. The
provisions of Section 32 of the Act, with regard to production-and income
sharing,
shall apply to commercial farms.
1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
Article 2, Section 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural
development and agrarian reform.
Article 12, Section 1. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable
distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a sustained increase in the
amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of the
people; and an expanding productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for
all, especially the underprivileged.
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound
agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make
full of efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive
in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino
enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.
In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all region s of the
country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises,
including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall
be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.
ARTICLEXIII
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity,
reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common
good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments.
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to
create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.
LABOR
Section 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities, including the
right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of
tenure, humane conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers
and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to
foster industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and to expansion and
growth.
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM
Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to
own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands,
subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity
considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
sharing.
Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and
landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers'
organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of
the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate
technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and
other support services.
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or
stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or
utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain
under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to
their ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers
in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner
provided by law.

Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially
of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and
fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such
fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial,
production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also
protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to
offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion.
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of
marine and fishing resources.

Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the

proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization,
employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial
instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in
enterprises of their choice.
CASES
G.R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990
Luz Farms
vs Hon. Sec. of the Dept. of Agrarian Reform
Ponente: Paras
Facts:
Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business allegedly
stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement of CARP. Luz Farms
petitions CARP to be declared unconstitutional together with a writ of
preliminary injunction or restraining the order. The Court resolved to deny the
petition.
Later, after a motion for reconsideration, the Court granted the motion
regarding the injunction and required the parties to file their respective
memoranda.
Luz Farm: Livestock or poultry raising is not similar to crop or tree farming.
Land is not the primary resource in this undertaking and represents no more
than five percent (5%) of the total investment of commercial livestock and
poultry raisers. Indeed, there are many owners of residential lands all over the
country who use available space in their residence for commercial livestock and
raising purposes, under "contract-growing arrangements," whereby processing
corporations and other commercial livestock and poultry raisers.
DAR: livestock and poultry raising is embraced in the term "agriculture" and the
inclusion of such enterprise under Section 3(b) of R.A. 6657 is proper. He cited
that Webster's International Dictionary, "Agriculture — the art or science of
cultivating the ground and raising and harvesting crops, often, including also,
feeding, breeding and management of livestock, tillage, husbandry, farming.
Issue: Constitutionality of CARP, insofar as the said law includes the raising of
livestock, poultry, swine in its coverage.
Ruling:
The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986
on the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the
intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry
industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform
program of the Government.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Sections 3(b),
11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the raising of livestock,
poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and
Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith, are hereby DECLARED null
and void for being unconstitutional and the writ of preliminary injunction
issued is hereby MADE permanent.
Central Mindanao University vs. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
Board
215 SCRA 86 (1992)
Facts:
On 16 January 1958, President Carlos Garcia issued Proclamation No. 467
reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural College, now the CMU, a piece of land to
be used as its future campus. In 1984, CMU embarked on a project titled
"Kilusang Sariling Sikap" wherein parcels of land were leased to its faculty
members and employees. Under the terms of the program, CMU will assist
faculty members and employee groups through the extension of technical
know-how, training and other kinds of assistance. In turn, they paid the CMU a
service fee for use of the land. The agreement explicitly provided that there will
be no tenancy relationship between the lessees and the CMU.
When the program was terminated, a case was filed by the participants of the
"Kilusang Sariling Sikap" for declaration of status as tenants under the CARP. In
its resolution, DARAB, ordered, among others, the segregation of 400 hectares
of the land for distribution under CARP. The land was subjected to coverage on
the basis of DAR's determination that the lands do not meet the condition for
exemption, that is, it is not "actually, directly, and exclusively used" for
educational purposes.
Issue:
Is the CMU land covered by CARP? Who determines whether lands reserved for
public use by presidential proclamation is no longer actually, directly and
exclusively used and necessary for the purpose for which they are reserved?
Held:
The land is exempted from CARP. CMU is in the best position to resolve and
answer the question of when and what lands are found necessary for its use.
The Court also chided the DARAB for resolving this issue of exemption on the
basis of "CMU's present needs." The Court stated that the DARAB decision
stating that for the land to be exempt it must be "presently, actively exploited
and utilized by the university in carrying out its present educational program
with its present student population and academic faculty" overlooked the very
significant factor of growth of the university in the years to come.
NATALIA REALTY
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as
approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its precursor
agencies[1] prior to 15 June 1988,[2] covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988? This is the pivotal issue in
this petition for certiorari, assailing the Notice of Coverage[3] of the Department
of Agrarian Reform over parcels of land already reserved as townsite areas
before the enactment of the law.
Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. (NATALIA, for brevity) is the owner of three (3)
contiguous parcels of land located in Banaba, Antipolo, Rizal, with areas of
120.9793 hectares, 1,3205 hectares and 2,7080 hectares, or a total of 125,0078
hectares, and embraced in Transfer Certificate of Title No. 31527 of the Register
of Deeds of the Province of Rizal.
On 18 April 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares
of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as
townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were
designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are
situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation.
Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties into low-
cost housing subdivisions within the reservation, petitioner Estate Developers
and Investors Corporation (EDIC, for brevity), as developer of NATALIA
properties, applied for and was granted preliminary approval and locational
clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission. The necessary
permit for Phase I of the subdivision project, which consisted of
13,2371 hectares, was issued sometime in 1982;[4] for Phase II, with an area of
80,0000 hectares, on 13 October 1983;[5] and for Phase III, which consisted of
the remaining 31,7707 hectares, on 25 April 1986.[6]Petitioners were likewise
issued development permits[7] after complying with the requirements. Thus
the NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision.
On 15 June 1988, R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988" (CARL, for brevity), went into effect. Conformably
therewith, respondent Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR, for brevity),
through its Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer, issued on 22 November 1990 a
Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90,3307 hectares. NATALIA
immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage.
EDIC also protested to respondent Director Wilfredo Leano of the DAR Region
IV Office and twice wrote him requesting the cancellation of the Notice of
Coverage.
On 17 January 1991, members of the Samahan ng Magsasaka sa Bundok
Antipolo, Inc. (SAMBA, for brevity), filed a complaint against NATALIA and EDIC
before the DAR Regional Adjudicator to restrain petitioners from developing
areas under cultivation by SAMBA members.[8] The Regional Adjudicator
temporarily restrained petitioners from proceeding with the development of
the subdivision. Petitioners then moved to dismiss the complaint; it was denied.
Instead, the Regional Adjudicator issued on 5 March 1991 a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction.
Petitioners NATALIA and EDIC elevated their cause to the DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB); however, on 16 December 1991 the DARAB merely remanded
the case to the Regional Adjudicator for further proceedings.[9]
In the interim, NATALIA wrote respondent Secretary of Agrarian Reform
reiterating its request to set aside the Notice of Coverage. Neither respondent
Secretary nor respondent Director took action on the protest-letters, thus
compelling petitioners to institute this proceeding more than a year thereafter.
NATALIA and EDIC both impute grave abuse of discretion to respondent DAR
for including undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the
coverage of the CARL. They argue that NATALIA properties already ceased to be
agricultural lands when they were included in the areas reserved by
presidential fiat for townsite reservation.
Public respondents through the Office of the Solicitor General dispute this
contention. They maintain that the permits granted petitioners were not valid
and binding because they did not comply with the implementing Standards,
Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957, otherwise known as "The Subdivision and
Condominium Buyers' Protective Decree," in that no application for conversion
of the NATALIA lands from agricultural to residential was ever filed with the
DAR. In other words, there was no valid conversion. Moreover, public
respondents allege that the instant petition was prematurely filed because the
case instituted by SAMBA against petitioners before the DAR Regional
Adjudicator has not yet terminated. Respondents conclude, as a consequence,
that petitioners failed to fully exhaust administrative remedies available to
them before coming to court.
The petition is impressed with merit. A cursory reading of the Preliminary
Approval and Locational Clearances as well as the Development Permits
granted petitioners for Phases I, II and III of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision
reveals that contrary to the claim of public respondents, petitioners NATALIA
and EDIC did in fact comply with all the requirements of law.
Petitioners first secured favorable recommendations from the Lungsod Silangan
Development Corporation, the agency tasked to oversee the implementation of
the development of the townsite reservation, before applying for the necessary
permits from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission.[10] And, in all
permits granted to petitioners, the Commission stated invariably therein that
the applications were in "conformance"[11] or "conformity"[12] or
"conforming"[13] with the implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D.
957. Hence, the argument of public respondents that not all of the requirements
were complied with cannot be sustained.
As a matter of fact, there was even no need for petitioners to secure a clearance
or prior approval from DAR. The NATALIA properties were within the areas set
aside for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Since Presidential Proclamation No.
1637 created the townsite reservation for the purpose of providing additional
housing to the burgeoning population of Metro Manila, it in effect converted for
residential use what were erstwhile agricultural lands provided all requisites
were met. And, in the case at bar, there was compliance with all relevant rules
and requirements. Even in their applications for the development of the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision, the predecessor agency of HLURB noted that
petitioners NATALIA and EDIC complied with all the requirements prescribed
by P.D. 957.
The implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of P.D. 957 applied to all
subdivisions and condominiums in general. On the other hand, Presidential
Proclamation No. 1637 referred only to the Lungsod Silangan
Reservation, which makes it a special law. It is a basic tenet in statutory
construction that between a general law and a special law, the latter prevails.[14]
Interestingly, the Office of the Solicitor General does not contest the conversion
of portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which have already been
developed.[15] Of course, this is contrary to its earlier position that there was no
valid conversion. The applications for the developed and undeveloped portions
of subject subdivision were similarly situated. Consequently, both did not need
prior DAR approval.
We now determine whether such lands are covered by the CARL. Section 4 of
R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural
lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as "land
devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as
mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."[16] The deliberations
of the Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. "Agricultural lands"
are only those lands which are "arable and suitable agricultural lands" and "do
not include commercial industrial and residential lands."[17]
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as "agricultural lands."
These lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural
lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation.
Even today, the areas in question continue to be developed as a low-cost
housing subdivision, albeit at a snail's pace. This can readily be gleaned from the
fact that SAMBA members even instituted an action to restrain petitioners from
continuing with such development. The enormity of the resources needed for
developing a subdivision may have delayed its completion but this does not
detract from the fact that these lands are still residential lands and outside the
ambit of the CARL.
Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of
CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior
to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR.
In its Revised Rules and Regulations Governing Conversion of Private
Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses,[18] DAR itself defined "agricultural
land" thus -
"x x x x Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as
defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies,
and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding
competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or
industrial use."
Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent
DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the
undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of
CARL.
Be that as it may, the Secretary of Justice, responding to a query by the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform, noted in an Opinion[19] that lands covered by
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637, inter alia, of which the NATALIA lands are
part, having been reserved for townsite purposes "to be developed as human
settlements by the proper land and housing agency," are "not deemed
'agricultural lands' within the meaning and intent of Section 3 (c) of R.A. No.
6657." Not being deemed "agricultural lands," they are outside the coverage of
CARL.
Anent the argument that there was failure to exhaust administrative remedies
in the instant petition, suffice it to say that the issues raised in the case filed by
SAMBA members differ from those of petitioners. The former involve
possession; the latter, the propriety of including under the operation of CARL
lands already converted for residential use prior to its effectivity.
Besides, petitioners were not supposed to wait until public respondents acted
on their letter-protests, this after sitting it out for almost a year. Given the
official indifference, which under the circumstances could have continued
forever, petitioners had to act to assert and protect their interests.[20]
In fine, we rule for petitioners and hold that public respondents gravely abused
their discretion in issuing the assailed Notice of Coverage dated 22 November
1990 of lands over which they no longer have jurisdiction.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is GRANTED. The Notice of Coverage of
22 November 1990 by virtue of which undeveloped portions of the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision were placed under CARL coverage is hereby SET ASIDE.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Davide, Jr.,
Romero, Nocon, Melo, Quiason, Puno, and Vitug, JJ.,concur.
Natalia Realty, Inc. and Estate Developer and Investors Corp vs DAR
GR No 103302 August 12, 1993
Facts:
Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with an area of 120.9793
hectares, 1.3205 hectares and 2.7080 hectares or a total of 125.0078 hectares,
which are covered by TCT No. 31527. Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set
aside 20,312 hectares of land as townsite areas to absorb the population
overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan
Townsite. The Natalia properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as
townsite reservation. Since private landowners were allowed to develop their
properties into low-cost housing subdivisions with the reservation, petitioner
EDIC as developer of Natalia applied for and was granted preliminary approval
and location clearances by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission,
which Natalia thereafter became Antipolo Hills Subdivision. On June 15 1988,
Ra 6657 went to effect. Respondent issed a Notice of Coverage on the
undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Natalia and EDIC
immediately registered its objection to the notice of coverage and requested the
cancellation of the Notice of Coverage.
Natalia and EDIC both argued that the properties ceased to be agricultural lands
when they were included in the areas reserved by Presidential Proclamation for
the townsite reservation. DAR then contended that the permits granted were
not valid and binding since they did not comply with t he implementing
Standards, Rules and Regulations of PD 957 (The Subdivision and Condominium
Buyers Protective Decree), and that there was no valid conversion of the
properties.
Issue:
Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use, as approved by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its agencies prior to June 15, 1988
covered by RA 6657.
Ruling:
No, Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands.
And agricultural lands is referred to as land devoted to agricultural activity and
not classified as mineral, forst, residential, commercial or industrial land. Thus,
the underdeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot be
considered as agricultural lands for this land was intended for residential use.
They ceased to be agricultural land by virtue of the Presidential Proclamation
No. 1637.
G.R. No. 162070 Case Digest
G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005
DAR
vs Delia Sutton,etc.
Ponente: Puno
Facts:
Respondents inherited a land in Masbate which has been exclusively devoted to
cow and calf breeding, the respondents made a voluntary offer to sell their land
to DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law. When CARP took effect, it
included to its coverage farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine.
Since, SC en banc declared lands devoted to poultry and livestock not included
in the definition of agricultural land in Luz Farms Case, respondents filed with
DAR a formal request to withdraw their offer to sell saying that their land is
exempted from the coverage of CARL.
In 1995, DAR partially granted the application of the respondents for exemption
applying the retention limits (1hectare:1head of animal) with such, some
portion of respondent's land were exempted, some portion were segregated
and placed under Compulsory Acquisition. Respondents moved for
reconsideration saying that the entire portion of the land must be exempted
because it was solely devoted to cattle-raising, their motion was denied.
They filed a notice of appeal with the Office of the President assailing the
constitutionality of CARL and pushing their application for exemption. The
President affirmed the order of DAR. On appeal, CA declared the DAR
Administrative Order (retention limits) null and void, favoring the respondents.
Issue: Whether DAR A.O prescribing a maximum retention limit for owners of
lands devoted to livestock raising constitutional.
Ruling:
We find that the impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The
A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of
agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership.
However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear
intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and
poultry- raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine
and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition
of agriculture or agricultural activity. The raising of livestock, swine and poultry
is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural,
activity. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of
industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities,
drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors,
exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other
supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented
by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses,
sprayers, and other technological appurtenances.
Lands devoted to raising of livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as
industrial, not agricultural, lands and thus exempt from agrarian reform.
Petitioner DAR argues that, in issuing the impugned A.O., it was seeking to
address the reports it has received that some unscrupulous landowners have
been converting their agricultural lands to livestock farms to avoid their
coverage by the agrarian reform. Again, we find neither merit nor logic in this
contention. The undesirable scenario which petitioner seeks to prevent with the
issuance of the A.O. clearly does not apply in this case. Respondents family
acquired their landholdings as early as 1948. They have long been in the
business of breeding cattle in Masbate which is popularly known as the cattle-
breeding capital of the Philippines. Petitioner DAR does not dispute this fact.
Indeed, there is no evidence on record that respondents have just recently
engaged in or converted to the business of breeding cattle after the enactment
of the CARL that may lead one to suspect that respondents intended to evade its
coverage. It must be stressed that what the CARL prohibits is the conversion of
agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes after the effectivity of the CARL.
There has been no change of business interest in the case of respondents.